Mahogany on Maple body questions

[ihavenothingprofoundtosay]

I'm planning out a build for myself, and am looking at a buying a maple body blank & mahogany top, and working with a friend who does cabinets to get it shaped into a [particular classic guitar shape] body.  Yes, mahogany on maple, not the other way around.  :glasses10:  I do plan on chambering/hollowing out the maple before (so I'll end up with a pretty unique [particular classic guitar shape] thinline) because I know the maple will be heavy.

Questions:

- I know that maple will be rather bright, thus the mahogany top to even things out.  Is there some reason why this combo is usually done with maple cap on a mahogany body?  If it's looks, I much prefer the "plainer" grain lines of mahogany to most flame maple tops I've seen (which is totally subjective)

- I don't plan on putting F holes in it, but is there some reason I should consider it?  This is going to be an almost entirely studio/recording guitar, not played live nor with massively cranked up amps (except through simulators), so I don't think feeback will be an issue, but I've never owned a thinline before.

- Am I nuts for thinking I could use this as a top?  I am seriously wanting something on the plainer side in terms of grain/figuring, most hardwood suppliers seem to have endless "exotic" options for tops that are a bit too flashy for my taste.  Any other suggestions?

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

It is done, because....gasp....the top wood does nothing for the sound.  Maple is for the eyes and not the ears when done on a top.

 

[Death by Uberschall]

It is done, because....gasp....the top wood does nothing for the sound.   Maple is for the eyes and not the ears when done on a top.

You're smart to chamber that combo, it will warm up the maple and offer some weight reduction. Maple is heavier than it looks.

 

[Orpheo]

It is done, because....gasp....the top wood does nothing for the sound.   Maple is for the eyes and not the ears when done on a top.

I really can't understand how you can say that in full seriousness. if the top is 1/8'', than you're correct. but on a les paul, a flamed maple cap really makes a huge difference.

it also matters because the topwood is the wood where the studs are hammered in (first). so using a maple back and a mahogany top will yield a warmer tone, sweeter highs, crunchier mids and tight lows. I know, cause, I've tried it out.

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

I call BS, simply because many solid colored finished LPs don't have the Maple tops and I have never heard anyone say those sound any different.  The all Mahogany LP Studios, other than the pickup differences, don't sound any different either.  Of course it could be because the people that regurgitate tone charts don't know they have mahogany tops.  A Maple body with a Mahogany top will sound like Maple.  A Mahogany body with Maple top will sound like Mahogany.  And both of those are only secondary to the neck wood anyway.  If Purpleheart, Goncalo Alves, Bloodwood, Maple, and Walnut were all painted black, you wouldn't know either.

 

[Cagey]

It is done, because....gasp....the top wood does nothing for the sound.   Maple is for the eyes and not the ears when done on a top.

I really can't understand how you can say that in full seriousness. if the top is 1/8'', than you're correct. but on a les paul, a flamed maple cap really makes a huge difference.

it also matters because the topwood is the wood where the studs are hammered in (first). so using a maple back and a mahogany top will yield a warmer tone, sweeter highs, crunchier mids and tight lows. I know, cause, I've tried it out.

That's quite a laundry list you've got there resulting from a relatively thin piece of mahogany laminated to a big ol' hunka maple. But, that's not all it'll do! It'll also resolve the conflicts in the middle east, satisfy world hunger, cure cancer, and eliminate all crime! Now how much would you pay? Don't answer! Because you might not believe this, little fella, but it'll cure your asthma, too! <grin>

 

[crash]

But still no hope for male pattern baldness  :sad:

 

[Nando Vallart]

But still no hope for male pattern baldness  :sad:

Reforesting! Ain't the best solution but kinda works! I'm going to do it in a while :laughing7:

 

[Cagey]

But still no hope for male pattern baldness  :sad:

Reforesting! Ain't the best solution but kinda works! I'm going to do it in a while :laughing7:

Don't. You'll be sorry. There's no "cure", there's just a treatment. It works, but it's like feeding a puppy - a never-ending pain in the ass obligation where death is the only release, unless you want to thin out or go bald again, but worse because it's dramatically more expensive. Better to just grin and bear it. It's not like it's a communicable disease. It's much easier to take care of anyway, so think of it as a Good Thing. Regardless of what you think, the only person bothered by your lack of hair is yourself. 

 

[pabloman]

Most solid colored Les Pauls indeed have maple tops. It's pretty common knowledge that an all Mahogany Custom is darker than a Standard with the same pickups even with the ebony fretboard. I have played the studios you are referring to in A/B comparisons many times for customers and the proof is in the pudding. One of the best amps to show this is the Blues Jr. You also have to take into consideration the difference in pickups. But like I said I am speaking from experience not just arguing based on theory that doesn't take into account all the variables.

 

[Telenator]

In all the years I've been playing and building guitars the Les Paul seem to be the one exception to the rule.

For whatever reason, a Les Paul has a unique sound that distinguishes it from all the others.

As far as all the other "tone descriptions" go, I say bull. There is no predicting what an un-built guitar is going to sound like until it's actually built.

I have heard ash body Telecasters with maple necks that were warm and sweet sounding while the shape in mahogany with a rosewood finger board sounded bright and shrill. There's just no way of knowing until it's all together and plugged in.

Oh, and "acoustic resonance" has nothing to do with the electric sound either!  :cool01:

 

[Cagey]

In all the years I've been playing and building guitars the Les Paul seem to be the one exception to the rule. For whatever reason, a Les Paul has a unique sound that distinguishes it from all the others.

Les Pauls have short scale lengths and short necks. A good percentage of the playing surface is resting on/buried in the body, rather than swinging around on a stick.

 

[Telenator]

In all the years I've been playing and building guitars the Les Paul seem to be the one exception to the rule. For whatever reason, a Les Paul has a unique sound that distinguishes it from all the others.

Les Pauls have short scale lengths and short necks. A good percentage of the playing surface is resting on/buried in the body, rather than swinging around on a stick.

That's as good an explanation as I've ever heard. I had a 1955 Custom that was solid mahogany and there was no mistaking it's lineage. It had "the sound."

I have built so many guitars that completely surprised me by the way they sound that I just had to toss "the rule book" and simply start accepting each one it's own merits.

That said, I think the OP has just as good a chance of building a great sounding guitar using hos choice of materiels as any other combination.  :guitarplayer2:

 

[Cagey]

I have built so many guitars that completely surprised me by the way they sound that I just had to toss "the rule book" and simply start accepting each one it's own merits.

That's very true. On an acoustic, minor differences, right down to the finish used, can have major effects on character. But on an electric, it's mostly in the pickups and their position and partly in the neck. The wood will change things, but it's not the hyper-critical game-changing thing everybody makes it out to be, and the finish makes no difference at all.

 

[Telenator]

cagey, I have slightly different feeling about that.

When I build a guitar, I drop in a set of generic pickups and listen. If it takes humbuckers, I use a Seymour Duncan '59 at the neck and a Custum V at the bridge. If we're talking Strat, it's a set of Fender Am Std pickups. For Tele, it's a Broadcaster or Nocaster bridge with a Twisted Tele neck pickup. From these three basic set-ups I can tell what a guitar is going to give me.

My experience has been that, once a guitar reveals it's voice with a generic set of pickups, that is pretty much what it's going to sound like. Based on what I hear, I may make one more selection or have something custom wound to address the stronger and weaker areas of a guitar's voice but I won't persue it much further than that. The absolute best guitars I've ever heard have all sounded great regardless of what pickups were in them and changing them out for set set more suitable for that instruments sweet frequency range has been a an enhancemet.

I have chased my tail around for years swapping out pickup sets in guitars that just didn't have "the voice." I don't do it any more.

For me, it's in the wood. All of it. I have swapped necks and bodies around with very good results and have come to the conclusion that a great guitar truly is "the sum of the parts."

I won't dispute others findings because whatever they're doing works for them. I suppose this info is only useful to someone who has tried a few different approaches without success and has yet to find their owm method.  :icon_smile:

 

[DustyCat]

It is done, because....gasp....the top wood does nothing for the sound.   Maple is for the eyes and not the ears when done on a top.

Check out this blurb from a 2011 "Guitars" calender.

-DC

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

Not really relevant to the conversation because as mentioned earlier by other members, acoustic and electric guitar principles are different, almost opposite.  On one the top matters little and more on the other.

 

[dmraco]

I have a 100% pure maple 1 piece body telecaster with a duncan JBL humbucker in the bridge position.  Does not sound much brighter than my les paul studio.  Tone factor of wood accouns for about 5% IMHO.

 

[Superlizard]

Most solid colored Les Pauls indeed have maple tops. It's pretty common knowledge that an all Mahogany Custom is darker than a Standard with the same pickups even with the ebony fretboard. I have played the studios you are referring to in A/B comparisons many times for customers and the proof is in the pudding. One of the best amps to show this is the Blues Jr. You also have to take into consideration the difference in pickups. But like I said I am speaking from experience not just arguing based on theory that doesn't take into account all the variables.

You've brought up some good points - to add:

- a LP Standard typically also has a rosewood fretboard (dark), yet (again) the Custom is still darker.

- you mention playing a Blues Jr. to show the differences... undoubtedly the rig one
plays through is also a major part of the overall tone.  Therefore it would stand that
perhaps some people with massive distortion+compression-producing amps/rigs
cannot hear the subtler nuances provided by different wood/hardware combinations.

For a theoretical experiment, I could have one guitar made entirely out of a cow chip, and
another guitar made out of maple body, mahog top with mahog neck and ebony fretboard...

...both have the same tune-o-matic bridge, pickups etc...

And I run them through a Mesa-Boogie Rectumfrier plus a few stomps with balls-to-the-wall gain
(cuz that's how "I" normally run my rig).  I have so much gain and my tone is so compressed
that the amp dynamics (if any) are squashed completely; therefore any subtle nuances coming
from my guitar's wood/hardware choices are gone along with the amp dynamics.

I guarantee you wouldn't hear a difference between guitars in the above scenario.  Then, "I" would
go on guitar gear boards and state thusly:

"It doesn't matter if your guitar is made out of maple+mahogany, or cow poop - the tone is the same!"   :laughing11:   (  :doh:  )

- A final point:  not everybody has the same pair of ears; some people can hear (certain) frequencies
better than others.  But to state this fact is not in line with the politically correct mantra of, "everybody's
exactly the same and therefore equal right down the line".

 

[bagman67]

! Because you might not believe this, little fella, but it'll cure your asthma, too! <grin>

Who you jivin' with that kosmic debris?